Bibliographie sélective OHADA

First paragraph: This article considers the issue of an oral arbitration agreement in relation to the New York Convention. As Townsend once said "[a]rbitration offers a means to an end, and the end is to the resolution of disputes." This end would be extremely difficult to achieve without the approval of national courts. Fortunately, with 146 signatory countries signed on the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards 1958 (The New York Convention), the success of this Convention has attracted businessmen into using arbitration to resolve their disputes. Nevertheless, a voluntary arbitration cannot be commenced without a valid arbitration agreement. Setting out to achieve harmonisation in the enforcement of arbitration agreements, art.II of the New York Convention provides the written requirements to be followed by all 146 signatory countries. Accordingly, written requirements for arbitration are imposed upon all signatory countries and they are obliged under the convention to recognise all arbitration agreements which are made in writing.

The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (hereinafter "ICSID") has started its fourth amendment of its Arbitration Rules since 2016. The issue of transparency has been highlighted as a delicate issue in ICSID ongoing current amendment. It is also listed in the topics that have been identified for potential amendment. This article analyses how the issues of access to hearings and confidentiality over information arising from arbitration is treated under the current framework. A comparison is made against the Transparency Rules. The analysis is also made against the comments received from the public whose views are analysed as a possible direction the amendment may take.

Explores the extent to which there is a duty of confidentiality in relation to the information used in arbitration proceedings. Considers how the duty is regulated by arbitration rules in different countries and whether there is a sufficient consensus to develop an internationally accepted principle of duty of confidentiality. Discusses which jurisdictions have an implied duty of confidentiality in the parties' arbitration agreement. Looks at how confidential information is defined in different jurisdictions, who is bound by the duty of confidentiality and the exceptions to the duty.

Third party funding arrives at international commercial arbitration without clear guidelines. The recognition and acceptance of its legality is hampered by the omissions of all stakeholders' rights involved in international commercial arbitration. In balancing the funder’s contractual rights to gather information under the third party funding agreement and stakeholders' rights to know, the current research examined how non-disclosure of the third party funding agreement would prevent the arbitrators from fulfilling procedural justice required for the integrity of arbitration on their part and impede the opposing party’s right to know during the proceedings. The research highlights the issues from the delivery of procedural and substantive justice as well as suggesting legal and jurisprudential grounds in third party funding governance. It also points out that all issues examined will ultimately contribute to the failure in delivering justice in international commercial arbitration if third party funding is left to self-governance.